Hall v. State, CR
| Decision Date | 18 February 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. CR,CR |
| Citation | 684 S.W.2d 261,285 Ark. 38 |
| Parties | Eugene James "Yankee" HALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. 84-168. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Robert A. Newcomb, Little Rock, for appellant.
Steve Clark, Atty. Gen. by Michael E. Wheeler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a denial of post conviction relief sought pursuant to Ark.R.Crim.P. 37. Our jurisdiction is based on Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Rule 29(1)(e).
The two questions presented below were (1) whether the appellant was denied the effective assistance of counsel and (2) whether the state has lived up to its plea bargain. We hold the trial court was correct in finding for the state on both points, thus we affirm.
The appellant was charged with capital felony murder and with attempted murder arising from a separate incident. The first charge was reduced to first degree murder and the attempt charge was dropped. In exchange for the charge reduction and for dropping the attempt charge, and the appellant now claims other promises, the appellant agreed to and did testify in other trials against other persons charged in connection with the murder to which he pleaded guilty.
The sole claim of the appellant in this respect is that his counsel informed him he would be eligible for parole in seven to ten years. He says had he known his sentence to life imprisonment would not permit him to be paroled he would not have pleaded guilty. Both of the lawyers who represented the appellant at his trial said at the Rule 37 hearing they discussed with the appellant the possibility he could be eligible for parole if his life term were commuted to a term of years. Neither could say he had told the appellant that one sentenced to an uncommuted life term would be ineligible for parole, but each said he had not told the appellant he could be eligible for parole on an uncommuted life sentence. One of the lawyers testified the appellant "was aware" that there was no parole eligibility with a life sentence.
To reverse the trial judge's denial of post conviction relief under Rule 37 we would have to find the court's decision was clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Knappenberger v. State, 283 Ark. 210, 672 S.W.2d 54 (1984); Williams v. State, 273 Ark. 371, 620 S.W.2d 277 (1981). The only testimony that the appellant was unaware his life sentence would not carry parole eligibility absent commutation came from the appellant. Based on the record of the hearing the court was free to hold that the preponderance of the evidence showed that while appellant's lawyers speculated with him about commutation and parole eligibility, the appellant was not misled.
The appellant contended at the Rule 37 hearing he had been promised (a) that he would serve his sentence at the diagnostic unit or other special place and not be placed in the general prison population at the Cummins unit, (b) that various persons would write letters for him recommending early parole, and (c) that the then Pulaski County sheriff would commute his sentence upon becoming governor.
The record shows that none of these alleged promises were included in the written plea agreement. The recorded agreement showed only that the appellant's guilty plea was made in exchange for reducing the charge from capital to first degree murder and dropping the attempt charge. It also stated the appellant's sentence would be served "in the Arkansas Department of Correction."
We agree the state must keep any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sword v. Shillinger
...473 (1962); United States v. Blackwell, 694 F.2d 1325 (D.C.Cir.1982); Ex Parte Yarber, 437 So.2d 1330 (Ala.1983); Hall v. State, 285 Ark. 38, 684 S.W.2d 261 (1985); People v. Fields, 35 Cal.3d 329, 197 Cal.Rptr. 803, 673 P.2d 680 (1983), cert. denied 469 U.S. 892, 105 S.Ct. 267, 83 L.Ed.2d ......
-
Caldwell v. State
...for his contention that he was entitled to specific performance of the agreement, Caldwell cites our opinion in Hall v. State, 285 Ark. 38, 684 S.W.2d 261 (1985), in which we said that if the state does not keep a plea bargain, an accused may withdraw his guilty plea, citing Santobello v. N......
-
Vagi v. State
...involved the executive branch. The appellant's chief argument is that the state has failed to keep the agreement. In Hall v. State, 285 Ark. 38, 684 S.W.2d 261 (1985), we stated: "We agree the state must keep any bargain it has made, Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.......
-
Green v. State, CR
...to be clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Whisenhunt v. State, 292 Ark. 33, 727 S.W.2d 847 (1987); Hall v. State, 285 Ark. 38, 684 S.W.2d 261 (1985). The evidence in the record supports the court's AFFIRMED. ...